Last Thursday in an interview on Fox and Friends, our former president, while talking about policing, said "He told the hosts he believes police are “not allowed to do their jobs.” He said officers ought to be able to search people on the street for guns and then seize them because they know the local community. “You got to let them do their job, stop and frisk, and take their gun away,” Trump told Fox and Friends. “You’ve got to do it.”

In the past, in a roundtable discussion of red flag laws, former VP Pence voiced support for red flag laws by saying “Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled,” “The ability to go to court, obtain an order, and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons in the possession of that individual—” Trump took it a step further and said “Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court,” “Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures—I like taking the guns early.”

So what's the deal? is the Republican nominee for president still in favor of taking guns without due process? I had hoped that he had improved his stance on the issue, but it seems not.

Link to article here.

They are all the same. Elitists that think the laws apply differently to them. They have hired security with guns that protect them. We don’t matter. Hard to find a politician (D or R) who wants maximum liberty for the “People”.

D’s hate the 2nd.

R’s hate the 4th and parts of the 2nd they don’t like

Most all of them hate the 1st.


I say get rid of all of them and elect me. I’ll either fix it or I won’t.

Loosegoose,

Anyone that keeps up with whats going on has heard/seen/read this....^^^^

But, it seems you're looking for a reason to not vote for Trump.

You don't have to. Your choice.

But, there will be no need to fuss and gripe as the Democrats do far worse to out rights related to the 2nd Amendment.

Not that it matters, but, I’m still voting for DJT, there are no other options at this point in time.

I already have my reasons to not vote for the guy, but that's not what this is about. And of course the democrats are far worse. That's a given. But so what. Democrats being terrible doesn't automatically mean the other guy is awesome.

I understand that my guy (vermin supreme, because at this point, why not?) isn't going to win. It's going to be either Trump or Harris. If Trump wins, I want him to support my right to own a gun and my right to due process. It seems like he doesn't fully support those rights though.

I think, loosegoose, that you should vote for Harris. That way your vote will count for something and you won’t have to worry about supporting a candidate that is somewhat soft on the second amendment.

Harris, like most other far left Democrats is rabidly anti-2A. You won’t have to concern yourself with her stance on the second amendment. She has repeatedly made herself very clear on that issue.

Loosegoose,
Who is your guy?

My understanding of what he said Thursday, with the limited amount of info provided, is that he meant cops tend to know who is a felon and who isn't in their community. Maybe because they have to arrest them so many times. Felons aren't allowed to have guns.

Anyone but orange guy bad evidently.lol

In view it like an illness, ironically.. If I were to fall ill, would I take medical advice and treatments to hopefully find a cure in that time. Or do I simply roll over as some would and give up and die? I myself have always been and will always be a fighter. I’ll see things to the end and live while doing so. That’s my view I guess, but to each their own.

at this point, Vermin Supreme. Might as well.

This is the thing right here that bothers me. There seems to be this attitude that, because candidate X is better than candidate Y, then candidate X is awesome.

There's nothing wrong with saying that while Trump is lightyears ahead of Harris on the 2a, he's still not very good on it. He holds some frighteningly anti-2a (and 4a) positions, but is better than Harris.

For or against the Second Amendment stems from where you live, or what you’ve experienced. If you live in the murder capital of the country, you’ll believe nobody should have a gun. If you live in So. Dakota, where murders are few and far between, having a gun seems natural.

Our problem is there are more murders (and voters) in the higher density population areas. Harris, Walz, Trump, Kennedy, all of them currently live in areas of higher populations. Our opinions don’t get much traction against high crime/large population areas.

If I lived in a big city I would welcome stop and frisk but being most are Dem controlled it's never going to happen. Trump did not do anything in his previous term that made my life worse, can't say that about this bunch we have in office now. We have two choices here and bashing the better of the two is idiotic.

That was exactly the CONTEXT in those conversations. The stop and frisk law was an older one that worked in the city and was effective in keeping law breaking thugs , gangs, from running rampant. All with illegal firearms . That older law worked in the city against those whom the police were familiar with , or knowing the crime pattern of their beat, which kept the streets safer.

None of this is new news at all. I'm surprised anyone squeals like it suddenly is.

I too heard this and other similar statements, and the context needs to be kept in mind. Dealing with thugs on the beat is FAR different than upholding the second A for law abiding citizens. Trump was speaking on a completely different subject .

Clear thinking dictates the ability to separate subjects within an overall title, the possession of firearms, legal or illegal . Not to have the attention span of a child and lump them all together.

Trump was always a big stop and frisk advocate , rights be darned
he repeated that many times over the years

he is still a New York elitist's and was before his first run for Prez.

they did see it work on gangs and such in NYC

they trampled the rights of lots of other people in the process.

Pretty sure context of what Trump was talking about in OP was inner city street thugs. Stopping the carnage that goes on in places like Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, DC, etc. Felons with guns and cops know who they are, but are not allowed to do anything about it. He is trying to make gains in those areas with people fed up with the crime and murders.

Then stop violating the rights of the people. Just say no to stop and frisk.

Add reforms to the justice system, if they are that much of a danger, they shouldn’t be out of jail or prison. Once they have paid their debt to society, all and I mean ALL of their rights should be restored.

They're talking about the dirt bags in the gutter , not law abiding citizens

Stop and frisk=obvious violation of the 4th amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". Thinking someone looks like a thug, knowing they've committed crimes in the past, or having a sneaking suspicion that someone is up to no good without being able to say why, isn't a good reason to search someone and violate their freedom. Rights and the violation of rights matter, even when it happens to people we find repugnant. Freedom is messy, but let's not sacrifice freedom for safety, because as we all know, those who sacrifice safety for freedom deserve neither.